QTR-Quadtone RIP

Hi again Frans.
Actually I did get your point the first time. I responded the way I
did because I think you are putting the cart before the horse. You
really should either try the process you are criticizing to it's end,
in the ways suggested, first -- or, if you have a terrible aversion to
doing that, just forget it all and move on. QTR is not Epson lite. It
is a different animal entirely and has it's own workflows and
rationals. What you see in the softproofed image on your monitor IS
the reality when you are looking at it. You asked for assistance here
and Tom has given you a considerable amount of help. It serves neither
you nor anyone trying to help you, for you to complain about why you
should have to do this or that or the other. You simply don't have
sufficient knowledge as yet to be a critic. Hopefully you will get
past your blockage and expend the slight energy it will take to edit a
copy of your original file under the QTR matt softproof and print it
with the same profile applied to it. Then if you still don't like the
results, well--so be it, at least you will have tried.

Regards
Duane


--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "fwaterlander" <frans2001@...> wrote:
>
> Duane,
> 
> I'm afraid you are missing the point. With the Epson driver I get a 
> near perfect monitor-to-print match (with the exception of slight 
> coloration in certain areas). With QTR I get a significant monitor-to-
> print mismatch. Of course I can tweak the image beyond what I like to 
> see on the monitor to compensate for what seem to be a significant 
> tonality shifts in QTR, but why should I have to do that? I expect 
> QTR to NOT shift tonalities to the extent is does and throw off the 
> match between what I see on the monitor and what I see in the print.
> 
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "dlruckus" <dlruckus@> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Frans.
> > If you want to judge how well a process works compare apples to
> > apples. The soft proof is telling you what you needed to know. Use 
> it.
> > It is intended to show you what you are going to get when printed 
> and
> > apparently it is doing that. If you don't like what it is telling 
> you
> > then edit your file until it Does look like what you want. Then 
> print
> > it using the same profile. THEN judge how well it is working. 
> Seemings
> > are really irrelevant until tested:)
> > 
> > Regards
> > Duane
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "fwaterlander" <frans2001@> 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Tom,
> > > 
> > > As far as I can tell, I'm doing all the things I am supposed to 
> do. I 
> > > use the QTR profile for my Epson 2200 with Enhanced Matte Paper 
> and 
> > > Epson inks (Printer <Quad2200>, Curve UC-EEnhMatte-cool, -
> coolSe, -
> > > Sepia or -warm). PS Proof Colors, once I set it up right, shows 
> me 
> > > that a significant flattening of the image will occur in print 
> and 
> > > when I print the image that gets confirmed very clearly.
> > > 
> > > I view my prints in SoLux 5000K light and view the QTR prints 
> right 
> > > next to the prints made with the Epson driver, all after at least 
> an 
> > > hour of drying and the differences are very obvious.
> > > 
> > > So, I'm afraid that your statement that it isn't so, isn't so.
> > > 
> > > The fact that Proof Colors shows no noticeable change for the 
> Epson 
> > > route but shows significant change for the QTR route and the 
> obvious 
> > > differences between the actual prints seems to indicate to me 
> that 
> > > the QTR profile/method is introducing some very noticeable 
> tonality 
> > > shifts, as compared to the Epson route.
> > > 
> > > So I am still grasping for straws! What else can I try and have 
> other 
> > > people had similar issues?
> > > 
> > > Frans Waterlander
> > >
> >
>